The Allahabad High Court has held that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh cannot impose an interim suspension on advocates while disciplinary proceedings are still pending. The Court said that suspension under Section 35(3)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a final disciplinary measure and cannot be imposed at an interim stage.
Background
The petitioners challenged an order dated September 26, 2026, passed by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The order suspended their enrolment “till further orders” and directed that they should not appear as counsel in any court.
The disciplinary matter was otherwise fixed for hearing on October 11, 2026. The order stated that the allegations concerning the advocates were serious and referred to their alleged rejection of a Bar Council resolution and an order of its Chairman, followed by publication in newspapers.
The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary found that the suspension order raised two important legal concerns. First, the suspension was for an indefinite period without specifying its duration. Second, the order did not explain whether the petitioners had received the complaint, despite their request for a copy.
The Bench observed:
“In the present case, it appears that the authority has suspended the advocates/petitioners from practice till further orders. Firstly, the suspension being for an indefinite period, without specifying its duration, appears to be unsustainable in law. Secondly, once the Disciplinary Committee had passed an order of suspension, no further adverse action could have been taken against the petitioners without issuance of a fresh notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing.”
The Court examined Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, which permits disciplinary authorities, after giving an advocate an opportunity of hearing, to dismiss a complaint, reprimand the advocate, suspend practice for a specified period, or remove the advocate's name from the State roll.
The Bench also relied on the Madras High Court's decision in R. Jim v. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, which held that the Advocates Act does not confer power on a Bar Council to place an advocate under interim suspension during disciplinary inquiry.
Holding that the procedure followed by the Bar Council was not in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961, the Allahabad High Court quashed and set aside the September 26 suspension order.
The petitioners were directed to appear before the disciplinary authority on October 11, 2026. The Bar Council was also directed to provide any required documents that had not been supplied, if requested within 24 hours.
The Court further directed the petitioners not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
Case Details
- Case Title: Akhilesh Jaiswal And Another v. Bar Council of India Through Chairman, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi And 2 Others
- Case Number: Writ-C No. 10924 of 2026
- Judges: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- Decision Date: October 1, 2026
